Please note: Due to the Labor Day holiday in the United States, the next issue of Ethics Newsline™ will be published Tuesday, September 5.

The top five and bottom five occupations viewed as having ‘very great’ prestige:

Source: Harris poll “measuring public perceptions of 23 professions and occupations,” conducted July 5-11, 2006.

Among my earliest recollections is the memory of my mother giving me a bath, during which I suddenly and for no apparent reason burst into tears. Puzzled, she asked what was wrong.

“You’re blowing smoke at me!” I sobbed, pointing to the cigarette that hung from her lips.

Horrified, she threw it away. I’m sure it had never crossed her mind that there was anything wrong with smoking in my infant presence. I’m equally sure my outburst was a visceral reaction rather than a social protest — though I can’t recall her smoking in the bathroom again.

In later years, as the dangers of smoking became more public, she gave it up altogether. But this was a woman who worked as a research assistant in a campus biology lab. That she could so easily overlook the effects of nicotine — a topic my father, who ran the lab, was then researching — reminds us of humanity’s relentless capacity for selective cognition. And that she could so easily accept the notion that liberated women would naturally smoke testifies to the tobacco industry’s power to manipulate the desire for gender equity into a subtle and cynical advertising campaign.

So it was satisfying to see, a half-century later, the body blow to the tobacco industry delivered earlier this month by judge Gladys Kessler in a United States federal court. Her scathing decision, based on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), runs to 1,742 pages. It found that for forty years the American cigarette companies had “marketed and sold their lethal product with zeal, with deception, with a single-minded focus on their financial success and without regard for the human tragedy or social costs that success exacted.” This they did, she writes, “in order to … ensure the future economic viability of the industry.”

Mark Gottlieb, director of the Tobacco Products Liability Project at Northeastern University School of Law in Boston, describes the impact of the decision in two key words: tobacco companies, he says, have now been legally and permanently branded as “adjudicated racketeers.”

How serious is Judge Kessler’s decision? Strip away her tobacco-specific references, and she could be describing Enron. There, too, the “single-minded focus” was on financial success. The work was done with “zeal” and rooted in “deception.” And it was carried on “without regard for the human tragedy or social costs that success exacted,” most memorably within the energy markets in California and the pensions of current and former Enron employees nationwide.

But in one detail the tobacco industry has managed to out-Enron Enron. I don’t recall hearing that Enron’s stock shot upward when its executives were found guilty. Yet that’s what happened to the tobacco industry. Shares of Altria Group, the parent company of Philip Morris USA, rose 4 percent to a record high following Judge Kessler’s ruling.

There are, of course, narrow financial explanations for that rise, the most notable being that the judgment frees Altria to sell Kraft Foods, its grocery-manufacturing subsidiary. That, apparently, will make Altria’s stock more valuable. Why? Because, free from the down-drag of the less profitable business of providing good, healthy food, Altria could marshal an even more “single-minded focus” on building new global markets for its “lethal product.”

The resulting situation is as plain as it is appalling. Investors hoping to cash in on Altria’s new fortunes are now free to do so. All they’ll have to give up is their ability to care about human tragedy and social costs. All they need to surrender, in other words, is their ethics.

Put that way, this assessment sets the cynics howling. Investors, they argue, have a perfect legal right to invest in tobacco. That’s true. But the beauty of this case is that it so clearly exemplifies the difference between what’s legal and what’s ethical. Can we as a nation tolerate a disconnect between ethics and law so deep that “adjudicated racketeers” not only are free to continue racketeering, but are encouraged to do so by investors excitedly bidding up their shares? Is there even a residual moral case to justify investors’ continued support of the tobacco industry? When something is legal but unethical, can the former ever be allowed to trump the latter? Can something unethical still be right?

Let’s hope the case is stark enough to help individual and institutional investors muster the moral courage to say no! They need to recognize that there are some areas where, no matter how large the profits, the human tragedy and social costs are simply too great — and where getting a reputation for associating with adjudicated racketeers isn’t worth the reward.

©2006 Institute for Global Ethics

“Democracy is a conversation, and the most important role of the media is to facilitate that conversation of democracy. Now the conversation is more controlled, it is more centralized…. [T]he only thing that matters in American politics now is having enough money to put 30-second commercials on the air often enough to convince the voters to elect you or re-elect you. The person who has the most money to run the most ads usually wins.”

– Former U.S. vice president Al Gore, criticizing the effects of media consolidation in the United States and around the world. Gore was speaking over the weekend at the Edinburgh International Television Festival in Scotland.

Gore, who has launched an Internet-based TV site to encourage democratic dialogue, argued that “ever-tighter political and economic control of the media is a major threat to democracy,” according to the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON
A new method to create human stem cells from a single cell, without harming embryos in the process, may represent a scientific solution to an ethical dilemma, according to press reports.

The new procedure borrows techniques from a method used in fertility clinics to diagnose genetic diseases in embryos, requiring a single cell from a developing embryo — not enough tissue to stop the embryo from growing normally — according to a report from USA Today.

While stem cell research has been lauded as a possible tool for treating currently incurable diseases, ethical concerns over the need to destroy embryos in the research process, which critics liken to abortion, have stalled progress.

Now, according to a report from the WebMD medical news site, Dartmouth ethicist Ronald Greene said the new technique “overcomes this hurdle” and “appears to be a way out of the current political impasse in this country and elsewhere.”

Greene is head of the ethics advisory board of the company that developed the process, Advanced Cell Technology, located in Worcester, Massachusetts.

The White House late last week said it was “encouraged” by the development, noting that the advance could help overcome president George W. Bush’s objections to what he views as the destruction of life, the Reuters news agency reported.

President Bush last month used the first veto in his presidency to halt legislation that would have funded some embryonic stem cell research.

But not everyone is convinced that the new method will erase all objections and skepticism.

A report from Newsday noted that various groups have lodged objections to the method of the research study that developed the technique, which did involve the destruction of some embryos. Others, according to ethicist Karen Maschke, “differ on whether there should by any kind of embryonic research whatsoever.”

Also, some scientists are urging caution in the wake of the recent ethics scandal involving a South Korean researcher who falsified data allegedly documenting another stem-cell advance, Forbes reported.

“This field has had its fair share of disappointments,” Arnold Kriegstein, head of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at UC-San Francisco, told Forbes. “We have to temper our enthusiasm until this has had a chance to be tried in other hands.”

However, he noted, “The data I saw in the paper looked quite convincing.”

WASHINGTON
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last week ruled that women 18 and over will be able to buy emergency “morning-after” contraceptive pills, trade-named Plan B, without a prescription.

According to a report from the Washington Post News Service, the announcement was intended to end one of the most prominent health-ethics controversies confronting the administration, but opponents immediately threatened to challenge the decision in court and in Congress.

Socially conservative critics charge the levels of hormones in Plan B pills pose health risks and that the availability of the pill will encourage casual sex and increase the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, the Post reported.

At the same time, opponents from the other side of the aisle argue that the age restrictions limiting the pills to women over 18 are politically motivated and ignore ethical concerns related to unwanted pregnancies.

“While we are glad to know the FDA finally ended its foot-dragging on this issue, Planned Parenthood is troubled by the scientifically baseless restriction imposed on teenagers,” Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards told CNN. “The U.S. has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the Western world. Anything that makes it harder for teenagers to avoid unintended pregnancy is bad medicine and bad public policy.”

Art Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, told MSNBC that “the battleground now shifts to availability for women under 18, and that is likely to prove very contentious since it is tied to strongly held beliefs about abstinence education and parental rights.”

Plan B controversies had slowed the confirmation of Andrew von Eschenbach as FDA commissioner. Following the FDA endorsement of Plan B, Democratic senators Patty Murray (Wash.) and Hillary Clinton (NY) immediately dropped their objections to confirming von Eschenbach, acting FDA commissioner since September 2005, Time Magazine reported.

JERUSALEM
Sexual harassment allegations against Israel’s president last week added to the flurry of political and ethical controversies unsettling the current government.

Israeli police confiscated a computer and documents at the official residence of president Moshe Katsav in an investigation related to charges by two unidentified women that Katsav made unwanted sexual advances, the International Herald Tribune reported.

Katsav has denied any impropriety, telling the Jerusalem Post that he is “entirely innocent” of the charges and that the investigation was politically motivated.

As of late last week, no official charges had been filed.

But opponents already have begun collecting signatures in the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, in an effort to convene a committee to discuss Katsav’s ouster, according to a report from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

Katsav’s position as president is largely ceremonial and his removal in and of itself would not threaten the current government. But as the London-based Independent noted, the incident added to the weight of a crush of issues undermining support for the government, including the recent resignation of Israel’s justice minister, who will face charges of indecently assaulting a female soldier.

A former internal security minister is accused of appointing political allies to government jobs in return for political support.

Prime minister Ehud Olmert, whose approval rating has plunged amid dissatisfaction with his handling of the war in Lebanon, also is currently facing an investigation into a property deal involving a Jerusalem property sale, according to the Independent.

DETROIT
One of the most visible ethics controversies involving the U.S. government last week took on a new aspect when a conservative group charged that the federal judge who struck down the Bush administration’s wiretapping program has financial ties to a plaintiff in the case.

The watchdog foundation Judicial Watch called for investigation into the link between U.S. district judge Anna Diggs Taylor and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Detroit Free Press reported. Taylor is the secretary and a trustee for a group called the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan, which has donated money to the ACLU’s Michigan office, according to a report from the Detroit Free Press.

The ACLU of Michigan was one of the parties in the suit challenging the administration’s domestic surveillance program, which monitors — without court warrants — phone and Internet communications between U.S. residents and parties overseas if either party is suspected of terrorist activity, UPI reported.

Several legal experts contacted by the media said that while Judge Taylor’s involvement with the ACLU funding mechanism would not necessarily have precluded her from hearing the case, she should have disclosed the connection to avoid an appearance of impropriety.

“It certainly would have been prudent” to disclose the connections in advance, Steven Lubet, a Northwestern University law professor and an author of a book on judicial ethics, told the New York Times. “I don’t think there’s a clear answer as to whether she should have disqualified herself … but at a minimum, she should have disclosed it.”

Taylor herself had not commented on the incident as of last week.

USA Today noted that the Bush administration is appealing the ruling but said that the implications of the disclosure of the judge’s financial ties to the success of the appeal were uncertain.

TORONTO
A U.S. State Department official based in Canada was charged last week with accepting jewelry, trips with exotic dancers, and other gifts in exchange for speeding approvals of visas.

The Toronto Star and the Associated Press reported that Michael John O’Keefe, deputy non-immigrant visa chief at the U.S. consulate in Toronto, faces bribery and conspiracy charges in relation to an alleged plot with the head of a jewelry company.

Prosecutors say the owner of the jewelry firm, Sunil Agrawal, head of STS Jewels Inc., was charged with bribing O’Keefe in order to help get faster approval for travel visas, thereby speeding travel time for employees and the gems they carried, according to a report from Bloomberg.

The case has touched some sensitive political nerves because Canada-U.S. border crossings often are under scrutiny as possible avenues for the infiltration of terrorists.

“U.S. consular officials are on the front line of our border protection,” said U.S. attorney Kenneth Wainstein, according to a report from the Toronto-based Globe & Mail. “A consular official who violates the rules for personal gain not only erodes public trust in our visa system, but seriously jeopardizes our national security.”

O’Keefe and Agrawal face between five and 15 years in prison if convicted of the charges, according to the Reuters news agency.

FRANKFORT, Ky.
Kentucky governor Ernie Fletcher, indicted this year on charges he violated state laws by hiring and promoting political cronies, will walk away from all charges after negotiating a settlement to three misdemeanor counts.

The Cincinnati Enquirer reports that the first-term Republican admitted no wrongdoing, but did sign a court order acknowledging that “evidence strongly indicates wrongdoing by his administration with regard to personnel actions within the merit system.” He stipulated that the actions were “inappropriate,” and that as governor he holds ultimate responsibility for them.

The order dismissed all charges “with prejudice,” meaning that they cannot be brought again, according to a report from Louisville television station WAVE.

Several state employees alleged that hiring decisions were based on political leanings, and said they had been discriminated against because of their political leanings.

According to the Louisville Courier-Journal, the order ends only the case against Fletcher. A grand jury continues to investigate other allegations of political patronage in Kentucky, and there is another ongoing investigation by the state ethics commission into allegations of abuses in the state hiring system.

Now that the case is concluded, Fletcher may be allowed to create a fund to accept donations to help him pay his legal bills, according to the Associated Press. While details are still being worked out, it appears that Fletcher would not be allowed to accept donations from people and firms who have business dealings with agencies with which the governor has direct involvement.

SAN FRANCISCO
A politician who became an icon of post-Soviet corruption in Eastern Europe last week was sentenced to nine years in prison for extortion, laundering money through U.S. banks, and fraud.

Former Ukrainian prime minister Pavlo Lazarenko also was ordered to pay a $10 million fine, according to the BBC.

Lazarenko was convicted of the charges in 2004 by a federal jury in San Francisco and has been under house arrest in the United States since that time. He had arrived in the United States in 1999, seeking asylum, but was arrested by immigration officials for visa irregularities and later was accused of a variety of corruption charges, according to a report in the San Francisco Chronicle.

His time served will count as part of his sentence, meaning that he may be released in about a year and a half.

The case was of particular interest to the international business community because it involved not only a variety of crimes on a global scale but testimony by firms from many nations, including Poland, Switzerland, and Ukraine.

According to the Agence France-Presse, Lazarenko is the first former head of government to be tried in the United States since Manuel Noriega of Panama was convicted of drug charges in 1992.

Lazarenko has argued that he was a victim of a political setup. According to the Ukrainian television 5TV, he has vowed to eventually return to Ukraine to resume his political career.

REDMOND, Wash.
Microsoft last week launched a legal campaign against companies it says exploit consumer confusion by registering websites that appear to be related to major companies, often relying on typos or misspellings to grab traffic from Web users.

“Cybersquatters” or “typosquatters” make their money by creating a site they hope will be confused with a popular and legitimate site, and post a page-full of ads. If those ads are clicked, the cybersquatters earn money from ad programs, such as the one sponsored by Google, according to the trade journal InformationWeek.

Microsoft filed two civil suits last week against four individuals, claiming that the men had registered more than 400 domain names that infringe on the firm’s intellectual property. According to TechWeb reporter Gregg Keizer, the domain names included several different renderings of terms such as “windows” and “hotmail,” sometimes with letters scrambled or omitted.

Keizer noted that while the practice of luring surfers to a domain name that exists only for the purpose of collecting ad revenue, a process known as “parking,” is not illegal, Microsoft is alleging that combining “parking” with a near-to-Microsoft name is a violation of intellectual property laws.

Microsoft alleges that the explosion of Internet advertising has started what their lawyer calls a “land rush on the Internet … to collect as many domain names as possible and monetize them using pay-per-click ads,” according to a report from CIO Magazine.

Also of interest in the case is a third “John Doe” complaint filed by Microsoft that seeks to unmask alleged cybersquatters who have paid privacy protection services to have their registration information hidden, according to a report from CNET and ZDNet News.

ATLANTA
Ethics experts are in demand more than ever before, according to a report syndicated by the Cox News Service.

Reporter Matt Kempner writes: “Universities have ramped up programs. Students are showing more interest, professors say. Top leaders at corporations are calling for advice. Ethicists say their days of feeling like window dressing have passed, even if they continue to face questions about whether they can really train people to be ethical.”

Kempner notes that demand is rising also for full-time ethics consultants and trainers, and reports that many of the 200 academics and businesspeople who attended the recent Society for Business Ethics’ annual conference in Atlanta predict the field will continue to be popular.

One attendee estimated that the number of books on business ethics now tops 500.

From Harris Interactive®:

“Firefighters, doctors, and nurses are seen as prestigious occupations by U.S. adults, while business executives, stockbrokers and real estate agents are seen at the opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to having prestigious occupations….

“Six occupations are perceived to have ‘very great’ prestige by at least half of all adults – firefighters (63%), doctors (58%), nurses (55%), scientists (54%), teachers (52%) and military officers (51%). They are followed by police officers (43%) and priests/ministers/clergymen (40%).

“By way of contrast, the list includes nine occupations which are perceived by less than 20 percent of adults to have ‘very great’ prestige, with one of these under 10 percent. The lowest ratings for ‘very great prestige’ go to real estate brokers (6%), stockbrokers (11%), business executives (11%), actors (12%), union leaders (12%), journalists (16%) bankers (17%), accountants (17%), and entertainers (18%)….

“Harris Interactive has been asking about the prestige of different professions and occupations since 1977. Over the 29 years since then, there have been some interesting changes:

• “Those who see teachers as having ‘very great’ prestige has risen 23 points from 29 to 52 percent.
• “Those who say lawyers have ‘very great’ prestige has fallen 15 points, from 36 to 21 percent.
• “Scientists have fallen 12 points from 66 to 54 percent.
• “Business executives have fallen seven points from 18 to 11 percent.

“…Teachers are the only occupation, among the 11 tracked since 1977, to see a rise in prestige….”

“Whoever is content with the world, and who profits from its lack of justice, does not want to change it.”

– Friedrich Dürrenmatt (Swiss dramatist, novelist, and essayist, 1921-1990)

As summer ends and kids head back to class, what do parents most want from schools? Reading, writing, and arithmetic, of course, along with sports, the arts, civic engagement, and interpersonal skills. But increasingly I hear a plaintive refrain: “Help us teach ethics and character.” If, along with social skills and academic literacies, there’s no focus on ethical literacy — if their kids come out smart, well rounded, and immoral — where’s the value in that?

How can you tell a school that earnestly promotes ethical development from one that merely talks a good game? Here are nine things — five values and four processes — to look for:

1. Honesty. Truthfulness, accuracy, and candor aren’t impossible ideals. Despite increasing levels of student cheating and plagiarism, it’s not hard for schools to define standards of honesty in writing, research, and relationships. Look for programs that specifically teach students to detect and resist deception, duplicity, and fraud — and that explain clearly to them why they must do so.

2. Responsibility. Being accountable for one’s own impulses, thoughts, and behaviors is central to good character. Showing up on time, repaying one’s debts, remembering to feed the cat — all of these are aspects of promise-keeping. But keeping one’s word isn’t always easy. Look for programs that teach the tougher aspects of responsibility — like knowing when to keep secrets that need protection and when to divulge information that needs telling.

3. Respect. Honoring others is simple when they look and sound like you or when they’re doing what you want. Sound character education reminds students of the world’s amazing diversity of races, tastes, species, aptitudes, and competencies that deserve our attention. It promotes listening even when you’re not being heard, appreciation even when you don’t fully understand, and obedience even when you didn’t craft the rules. Look for programs that put principle above personality, emphasize service before self, and encourage giving as a precondition of getting.

4. Fairness. Whatever teaches students to share equally, supply those less fortunate, and let others shine will help them understand the fair distribution of benefits. Whatever helps them play by the rules, judge by evidence rather than prejudice, and assume innocence until guilt is proven will help them grasp the fair procedures of justice. Look for programs that use everything from athletics and theater to student council and school trips to bring home these lessons.

5. Compassion. Whether it’s called empathy, love, tenderness, or kindness, this value goes to the core of motives and feelings. More intuitional than the others, it’s taught more readily by example than by discourse. When it’s missing, the other values turn brittle, and hypocrisy isn’t far away. Look for programs rooted in affectionate teaching, engaged learning, and a caring purpose.

Look, too, for four processes that bring these five values alive:

6. Expanding the moral perimeter. If these values operate only within the boundaries of family, clan, or clique, they won’t amount to much. Mafia hit-men and tin-pot dictators also honor these values among their confidants, though they deny them to everyone else. By contrast, those with the highest character see no perimeter at all: Everyone is worthy of their moral concern. Look for programs that diligently expand this perimeter — not by lowering standards and adopting a wooly relativism, but by extending these five values uniformly, even when they aren’t reflected back.

7. Imparting decision skills. The mere avoidance of wrongdoing isn’t sufficient for a life of integrity. Needed are ways to choose wisely between competing values. Children taught in primary school always to obey all five values find, as they grow up, that their toughest choices arise when one value (like responsible promise-keeping) conflicts with another (like truth-telling) — and where they can’t fully obey both at once. Look for programs that teach them right-versus-right decision skills lest they abandon the entire ethics enterprise as something they’ve outgrown.

8. Teaching moral courage. It is observable, sadly, that some people with fine values and solid moral reasoning skills can leave their decisions sitting unimplemented on the shelf. Absent the guts to put values into action, ethics is impotent. Character education without courage is like software without hardware — great stuff, if we could make it run. Too many schools coddle and cocoon their students, so that few opportunities remain for taking tough stands, testing one’s mettle, and facing down danger. Look for programs that help students express moral courage by enduring risk for the sake of principle.

9. Building cultures of integrity. Individuals live in and learn from cultures larger than themselves. They’re influenced not only by the school’s faculty, staff, and other students, but by its traditions, histories, and campfire stories, as well as by its parents, location, and standing among its peers. Look for programs that recognize this web of moral relationships, that see character and leadership as one, and that take responsibility for educating students to become builders of cultures of integrity throughout their careers.

And a tenth point: Even the best schools can’t do this work by themselves. Building character isn’t like building houses: You can’t contract it out. It’s a team sport, where parents, educators, and kids are on the field together. Look for a great program. Then get behind it every way you can.

©2006 Institute for Global Ethics

“The soaring cost of health care in America cannot be sustained over the long term by any business that offers health benefits to its employees. And every day that we do not work together to solve this challenge is a day that our country becomes less competitive in the global economy.”

– Wal-Mart chief executive H. Lee Scott, Jr., speaking in February to the National Governors Association, as reported by the New York Times

DETROIT
A U.S. federal judge last week ruled that the administration’s warrantless surveillance program — the touchstone in a heated ethical and legal debate over the balance of collective security versus individual rights — was an unconstitutional infringement on freedom of speech.

The International Herald Tribune reported that the ruling, the first judicial decision on the program, is probably only an opening round in what is expected to be protracted legal sparring over the issue.

The Justice Department filed an immediate appeal and the program will continue until at least September 7, when a follow-up hearing is scheduled.

President Bush was sharply critical of last week’s ruling, saying the court and those who agree with the decision “do not understand the nature of the world in which we live.”

The Associated Press quoted Bush as saying, “This country of ours is at war, and we must give those whose responsibility it is to protect the United States the tools necessary to protect this country in a time of war.”

He also expressed optimism that future rulings would side with the administration.

As expected, the debate over the ruling immediately took on political overtones, with the Republican National Committee (RNC) putting out an Internet video headlined “Democrat Judge Weakens National Security,” according to a report from the Reuters news agency.

RNC chairman Ken Mehlman, attempting to relate the ruling to the coming midterm elections, claimed that the judge, Anna Diggs Taylor of the Eastern District of Michigan, had sided with the American Civil Liberties Union and that her action was “a reminder of what is at stake in 2006,” Reuters reported.

In ruling that warrantless interception of overseas telephone calls and emails violated the Constitution and a 1978 law requiring the government to seek court permission before wiretapping people in the United States, Diggs argued that the president had overstepped his authority in approving the program.

“It was never the intent of the Framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights,” Taylor wrote, adding in a following section, “There are no hereditary kings in America,” according to a report from the Boston Globe.

While providing few details about the workings of the program, the administration has said that the surveillance is designed to intercept calls and emails between Americans and any other person overseas if either party to the communication is suspected of terrorist activity. The Globe reported that shift supervisors of the National Security Agency, instead of judges, approve requests to institute surveillance.

WASHINGTON
Wal-Mart’s effort to deflect a variety of ethical controversies that have dogged the nation’s largest retailer for years took a wrong turn last week when Andrew Young, the former pro-business mayor of Atlanta and the first African-American U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who had been hired by Wal-Mart to do public relations, resigned after making racially charged characterizations of competing merchants.

The Financial Times reported that Young will step down as chairman of the Working Families for Wal-Mart lobbying group, which had been set up to mobilize support among black and Latino leaders.

Part of Young’s job was to show that the retailer was a benefit to inner-city communities and to counter claims that the chain drives “mom-and-pop” stores out of business, according to a report from the New York Times.

In an attempt to make that case, ABC News reported, Young told a black community newspaper that small shops “are the people who have been overcharging us, selling us stale bread and bad meat and wilted vegetables…. They’ve ripped off our communities enough. First it was Jews, then it was Koreans and now it’s Arabs. Very few black folks own these stores.”

The U.K. Independent’s Washington bureau reported that after the remarks were publicized in the press and by anti-Wal-Mart groups, Young issued a resignation and an apology, saying, “Those comments run contrary to everything I have dedicated my life to. I apologize for those comments. I retract those comments. And I ask for the forgiveness of those I have offended.”